Complaint filed on: 24.11.2014
Disposed on: 06.08.2016
BEFORE THE BENGALURU IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027
CC.No.1967/2014
DATED THIS THE 06th DAY OF AUGUST 2016
PRESENT
SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT
SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER
SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER
Complainant: -
Irappa Chinchakhandi
Opp Yadahalli painter
Near Devi Temple
A/p Banhatti
V/s
Opposite parties:-
Reliance Digital Retail Ltd.,
RDRL Windsor Bangalore
Site No.12 & 3, Sy.No.75/B,
Windsor Hulimavu,
Bannerghatta Road,
Karnataka - 560076
ORDER
SRI. D.SURESH, MEMBER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the OP to pay Rs.24,282.00 along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000.00 on the allegations of deficiency of service.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:-
The complainant has purchased LED T.V. for Rs.24,282.00 from the OP on 22.05.2013 the said T.V. covered warranty for the period of 2 years. At the time of purchasing T.V. The sales representative of Reliance Digital retail ltd., assured that the life of the T.V. is around 40,000 hours and is covered by RCP i.e., free warranty service and if anything happens to the T.V. the OP will provide service within 24 hours at the complainant’s home. After purchase of the T.V. the defect found in it on 18.08.2014 and complainant gave complaint to the OP in respect of the defect found in the T.V. through telephone as well as email sent to the customer support center, despite telephonic complaint and mail to the customer care of the OP there was no response. As a last resort the complaint informed to the OP that he will move the complaint before consumer forum as a result the OP firm sent a person to check the T.V. and that person checked the T.V and informed, that the mother board of T.V. was burnt but he did not repair and there after the complainant’s brother took the T.V. to Philips store at Jamakhandi as the advice made by the service personal of OP, after keeping it for 29 days OP’s service personal did not repair the T.V. and the complainant brought back to his home as such the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP and is held responsible to compensate the complainant. Inspite of receiving email and telephonic request the OP failed to respond, hence the complainant has come up with this complaint.
3. After service of notice the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed version contending as under
The OP is inter Alia engaged in retail sales of electronic goods and home appliances. Philips is well known manufacturer and marketer of television in question and OP is one of the dealer of the said brand he set up its service centers in various cities of India. The OP providing guidelines to the customers regarding product details, extended warranty service, customer care center etc., after perusal of the complaint the complainant wanted the defective T.V. to be rectified by the OP at his home. The OP submitted that as per the terms of the resq coverage plan was required to report the complaint to the OPs customer care center and service to be provided at the nearest service center of OP, but the complainant refused to take service at nearest store situated at Hubli for reasons best known to him only. Even after the above, the OP’s representative offered to rectify the defect as per the terms and conditions of RCP and same has submitted before this forum also, but the complainant refused to accept the same. It is clear from the terms and conditions of RCP the complainant is required to bring the defective product to the service center of OP and cost of such transportation shall be paid by the OP without prejudice to its rights and defenses that in the interest of the customer and as a gesture of good will, even today OP is ready and will to arrange for the repair of the said T.V. Further the complainant has not initiated any steps U/S 13(1) (c) of Consumer protection act to ascertain the alleged manufacturing defects of T.V. by testing from an appropriate laboratory. In the absence of any material to prove the manufacturing defects in the T.V. the complaint is not maintainable.
4. Further the OP traverses the complainant allegation in seriatim that warranty to the alleged T.V. covered by two years is incorrect and RCP facility is available only for a period of one year. The OP will provide service within 24 hours at the complainant’s home is false and with regard to allegations made by the complainant that not providing service even after 29 days are not admitted by the OP and complainant is put to strict proof for the same. Further with reference to the prayer sought in the complaint is not entitled for refund therefore OP prays to dismiss the complaint.
5. So as to prove the case of the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced documents and on the other hand one Mirmaqsood Ali who being a store manager of OP has filed his affidavit by way of evidence we have heard the arguments of both parties and have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both side in between lines.
6. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and version of the OP the following points arise for our consideration.
- Whether the complainant has proved that the OP is negligent and there is a deficiency of service on the part of the OP
- If so what relief the complainant is entitled?
7. Our findings on the above points are:
Point No.1 : in the affirmative
Point No.2 : As per the final order
REASONS
8. It is the case of the complainant, that the complainant has purchased LED T.V. for Rs.24,282.00 from the OP on 22.05.2013 and said amount paid through HDFC Bank in support of this debit sale produced herein and warranty covered for the period of two years out of this one year is manufacturer’s warranty and another one is extended warranty by the Reliance digital Ltd., i.e. OP here in. After receiving the cost of the T.V. OP issued cash memo and delivery not to complainant than the sales representative of Reliance Digital retail ltd., assured to the complainant that the life of the T.V. is around 40,000 hours and is covered by RCP (resq coverage plan) i.e. free warranty service and if anything happens to the said T.V. OP will provide service within 24 hours at the complainant’s residence (home). Since from 3 months defect was found in the T.V and said T.V became dead. Complainant gave complaint to OP through telephone as well as sent e-mail to the customer support center, even after request made by the complainant personally the OP did not give his response. But the OP in his version denied this fact and he taken defence that the OP is a one of the dealer of Philips brand duly authorized to sell the product manufactured by the brand. RCP is an extended warranty to rectify the manufacturing defects after the initial warranty period, if anything happens to the product customer is required to report the complaint at the nearest service center/store of the OP and in the present case OP’s nearest service center is situated at Hubli and despite alleged complaint lodged by the complainant he did not take the T.V. to nearest service center and refused to do the same for reasons best known to him, further the complainant wanted the alleged defective T.V. to be rectified at his home and as a good gesture the Ops service personals visited the complainant house to carry out the required defect but complainant refused to allow the OP’s service personal to rectify the defect. Therefore, delay in rectification of T.V. was solely attributed to complainant.
9. The complainant has filed his affidavit of sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced copy of customer data, as looking into to the document extended warranty period i.e. RCP period was from 22.05.2014 to 21.05.2015 and it is clear that the said T.V. became dead on 18.08.2014 and informed the same to OP on 01.09.2014 through e-mail correspondence again the complainant made several mail correspondence at last on 11.09.2014 he send mail asking for replacement of T.V. or refund as the cost of T.V. but OP denied that he is in continuous touch with the complainant and OP is always ready & willing to rectify the fact in the said T.V and till this date he is ready to give service.
10. The OP in respect of defence filed his affidavit and reiterated the same, but in order to substantiate his defence he has not placed any documentary evidence except his interested version and later OP produced RCP terms & conditions. The said RCP does not support his contentions, therefore it is proper to accept the contentions taken by the complainant.
11. Complainant argued before us that when the defect was found in the T.V, he visited the OP’s shop personally at Bangalore on 01.09.2014 and explained the issue but OP’s service personal did not respond properly and later the OP’s service personal visited the complainant’s house and checked the T.V informed to the complainant that the motherboard of T.V. was burnt, so it is not possible to repair at the complainants house, then the complainant requested to the OP’s personal to take the T.V. for repair with him, but OP’s personal refused to do the same instead of it that OP’s personal suggested the complainant to bring the T.V to Philips store at Jamakhandi, as per his suggestion the brother of complainant took the T.V. to Philips at Jamakhandi and after keeping 29 days OP did not repair the T.V. So that brought back the said T.V. to the complainant’s house after making all efforts complainant filed this complaint.
12. The learned council for the OP denied all the allegations made by the complainant through his arguments, he raised the points that OP is a dealer of Philips as per the agreement between the OP and manufacturing company Philips, the manufacturer is responsible to provide all after sale service in relation to the product manufactured, the OP provides extended warranty (RCP). As per the RCP service to be provided at the nearest service center, OPs service personal visited the complainant’s house to rectify the defect in the said T.V, but complainant not allowed the service personal to rectify the defect. Further he argued that even to this date OP is ready and willing to arrange for repair of said T.V or refund the entire amount paid by the complainant upon return of the T.V set and other accessory, in this regard OP had a memo.
13. So from the evidence and arguments it is crystal clear that the complainant has purchased T.V from the OP on 22.05.2013 for Rs.24,282.00 with an extended warranty service by the OP from 22.04.2014 to 21.05.2015 and defect found in the T.V is well within the period of extended warranty and defect was communicated to the OP through telephone and e-mails to the customer care of OP. The OP failed to provide service as assured by him after failure to rectify the said T.V. complainant demanded for replacement of T.V. or refund amount paid as cost of T.V, it is clearly goes to show that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP.
14. After filing of the complaint, the OP offered the complainant to get back entire amount paid as cost of T.V. upon return the T.V. set and other accessories, but at this stage complainant sought not only cost of TV. But also compensation for loss and mental agony caused due to not giving proper service in time by the OP.
15. Considering all the above points the very act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP and liable to refund the cost of alleged T.V, further we are of the view that awarding reasonable compensation is also justifiable for loss and mental agony, accordingly we answer this point in affirmative.
16. In view of our affirmative findings on the point No.1, we are satisfied that complainant proved deficiency of service against OP, hence OP is liable to refund Rs.24,282.00 being the cost of the LED T.V. to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000.00 for mental agony within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP shall pay interest at 6% p.a., on the cost of T.V, further OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000.00 towards the cost of litigation to the complainant accordingly we proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part the OP is directed to pay Rs.24,282.00 being the cost of LED T.V. along with compensation of Rs.5,000.00 for mental agony within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which OP shall pay interest at 6% p.a. on the cost of T.V. from the date of this order to till the date of realization.
Further the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000.00 towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 6th day of August 2016).
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
-:ANNEXURES:-
1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:
Irappa Chinchakhandi, who being the complainant was examined.
2. Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:-
1. Debit sale HDFC Bank
2. Cash memo – Retail invoice dated 22.05.2013
3. Delivery note NO.83118950, dated 22.05.2013
4. CD – Telephonic communication
5. Customer copy Sl.No.20184
6. Mail Communications
3. Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit:
Reliance Digital Retail Ltd., who being the OP was examined.
4. Documents produced on behalf of the OP:-
- Terms & conditions of warranty i.e., Reliance RESQ case service terms
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
